<p>So did the Greek and Roman Societies.......it is not like we don't have a model for this.</p>
<p>We have more scholars driving cabs and otherwise underemployed than we need. Being a good well rounded person is important, being a "scholar" is overrated and leads to excessive navel gazing and *****ing about how unfair life is.</p>
<p>Barrons:</p>
<p>Is this what you mean by "well-rounded?"</p>
<p>My favorite line is this defense by the University spokesman: "[Head Football Coach] Coker has never had a player convicted of a crime in his time as head coach."</p>
<p>And, the player he recruited last year with a lengthy arrest record has avoided any further trouble with the law.</p>
<p>A girl from my school last year is going to Yale right now...she's an amazing gymnast but isn't exactly the smart type. It happens :-/.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The favoritism shown to athletes in the college admissions process is shameful. Spectator sports are a waste of time. Scholars are valuable. Athletes do not deserve the adulation afforded them.
[/quote]
Well, that's your opinion. Other might think that we're turning into a nation of navel-gazing couch potatoes as it is, and encouraging (and rewarding) excellence in physical pursuits as well as academic ones is a good thing.</p>
<p>It's not like the athletes at these schools are not doing the work, succeeding, and getting on with life effectively. What athletes are NOT generally speaking good at is reproducing college professors, upon which Swarthmore seems to pride itself (for reasons that are unclear to me.) Certainly the art, theater, music, and dance departments didn't experience any significant boost when they got rid of the football team. (It's interesting that, of AWS, the one with the most significant student participation in the arts is also the one with the greatest sports participation - and there is surely significant overlap.)</p>
<p>All this is simply a way of saying it's great that there are choices.</p>
<p>I believe we were focused on athletes at very selective schools. D-1 is another type of athletics in many ways and generally consists of large schools that can easily absorb a few jocks without keeping out significant percentages of other kids.</p>
<p>Part of the educational experience should be physical fitness and recreational pursuits. If an athlete is also a scholar and they are admitted based primarily on scholarship, that's fine. But, sports are greatly overvalued in the admissions process at the expense of scholarship, a practice which is grossly unfair. It is an unrecognized form of discrimination. The media circus surrounding professional sports has rubbed off on the Ivory Tower. Sports are big money but sports are also dumb money.</p>
<p>Look around at who the heroes and celebrities are in our society. If heroes and celebrities reflect the character of a society, then our society is clearly sick.</p>
<p>i think collegehelp needs to go grab a beer and chill.</p>
<p>Athletes should be rewarded for their efforts. Just not nearly as much as they are now.</p>
<p>good point, hazmat. ah, irony.</p>
<p>i kind of get what collegehelp is trying to say but not to THAT extent where it should be JUST academics. i think sports are needed at univeristies but i think its just wrong that a star athlete will be picked over a star scholar. i talked to the mexican student that got into harvard. so he was telling me that he will be going to harvard for next fall IF he finds enough scholarships to bascially pay for 1/2-3/4+ of his tuition. (btw this kid probably would have gotten in even if he wasnt mexican..awesome grades, club prez, awards,etc...). the kid that got in for baseball got a full ride. so here is the thing, what if the mexican kid cant find enough money to pay for harvard? he just wont go there? while the athlete (baseball kid) already knows he wont have to pay for jack squat. if athletes can get full rides then couldnt scholars get full rides too? i mean i no that scholars do get big scholarships but it seems like its much less common than for scholar kids to get them...</p>
<p>theripcurl, Harvard doesn't give athletic scholarships -- there is no such thing as a "full ride" athlete at Harvard.</p>
<p>^^^actually there is. the proof is the kid that got in for baseball.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, because of the Sunday NFL games!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^^actually there is. the proof is the kid that got in for baseball.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What kind of "proof" is that? </p>
<p>Ivy league schools definitely recruit athletes. There is absolutely such a thing as a "recruited athlete" at Ivy schools. </p>
<p>There are also kids who who qualify for financial aid based on need and/or merit. </p>
<p>The two sets do not always intersect, theripcurl. </p>
<p>A recruited athlete at any Ivy will only get financial aid if he or she has a demonstrated financial need or has what it takes to qualify for merit-based grants/scholarships. </p>
<p>There are many recruited athletes paying full tuition at Ivy's and DIII schools -- and some DI schools as well (they are known as "recruited walk-ons" -- they get help with admissions but any money they get is need- or merit-based). </p>
<p>This really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp.</p>
<p>Newsflash: Life isn't fair.</p>
<p>Do you think that the inequalities of life ends with college admissions? Do you think that life's playing field just evens out after college? If so, you are in for a rude awakening my friend. There is some facet of favoratism to one degree or another at every level of life and society: college, grad school, work, play, etc. etc.</p>
<p>So yeah, rich people get richer. Athletes get special treatment (doesn't end with Colleges, in fact that's just the beginning - look at all of the professional athletes that get away with murder ... literally - OJ anyone?)... Good looking people get paid more and get their drinks faster at the bar, etc. etc. </p>
<p>Get used to it.</p>
<p>Does that mean that I condone it? No. </p>
<p>The point is that you need to learn to recognize that this is the way the world is and you can either b_tch and moan and wallow in self pity OR better yet learn to achieve despite it - which is a much more productive strategy than letting your bitterness about the "unbelievable" world consume you... achieve despite (or because) of it, like the legions of people from humble beginnings who have acheived great things before you have.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>